You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #25: do you have a substantive response to post #9? [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-06-09 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. do you have a substantive response to post #9?
Edited on Sun Sep-06-09 11:00 AM by OnTheOtherHand
With due respect to "nashville_brook," that post begins with the claims that "We know Kerry led the pre-election" state and national polls. But "we" don't know that at all. The polls themselves don't know that (granted, they are insentient). Only after TruthIsAll adjusts the polls does Kerry lead.

So, maybe there's a good reason that arguments like this haven't swept the field of political science. Arguments that are ridiculous on their face don't exactly entice most scholars to take a closer look. I've been very unusually patient in that regard.

Since you were asking about books, here's part of what Myagkov et al. have to say in The Forensics of Election Fraud: Russia and Ukraine (Cambridge University Press, 2009), with reference to the United States:
Put simply, with competition largely driving the most egregious forms of fraud into exile, fraud never reached the proportions it has achieved in Russia. It is true that books and Web sites proliferate with titles such as "Proof of election fraud exposed," "'Stinking evidence' of possible election fraud found in Florida,' and "The 2004 election: The mother of all election fraud," with their authors claiming to have discovered the nefarious reasons why exit polls and final tallies did not match or to have compiled some evidence or gained the testimony of some witness proving that someone somewhere stole some amount of votes in favor of someone and that the victory of a candidate they abhor is illegitimate.... But massive irregularities of the sort now endemic to Russia are not the problem <in the United States>. (pp. 234-235)

Myagkov et al. go on to apply their forensic tools to U.S. election data in support of this conclusion.

In fact, Myagkov et al. betray some complacency about the very possibility of massive election fraud in the United States. That complacency is, in part, the legacy of advocates who have focused on bad arguments about past elections at the expense of good arguments about wide-ranging vulnerabilities in election systems. Crying wolf. Trying to convince people that Kerry really won New York by thirty-something points is, perhaps, the apotheosis of crying wolf. No one (AFAIK) expected it; it's not clear whether anyone other than you believes it.

But, hey, never mind all that. Do you have a substantive response to post #9?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC